Disabled?

Spotted this in a disabled toilet. Only for disabled people with two hands, it would seem.

Movie roundup...

I took a couple of transatlantic flights a couple of weeks back. Which, amongst other things, allowed me the chance to catch up on a few films I'd missed at the cinema.

The selection on offer was pretty good, but I passed on the chance to watch 'Frost/Nixon' or 'Slumdog Millionaire' - I'll watch them on DVD sometime anyway. Instead I watched 'Quantum of Solace', 'Yes Man' and 'The day the earth stood still' on the outbound flight, and I watched 'Milk' on the return flight; which I've already blogged about. I also saw 'Star Trek' while I was there, but that's worthy of its own blog posting, when I get the chance...

Quantum of Solace

I heard several reviews of this along the lines of 'you must re-watch Casino Royale before watching this, or you won't have a clue what's going on', yet I watched this without having seen CR since it was in the cinemas and managed to follow the plot (such as there is) pretty well.

Its entertaining nonsense. But we've known that about Bond for decades. So we have the usual mix of over the top action sequences, espionage and exotic locations. If anything, this owes even more of a debt of gratitute to the Bourne movies than Casino Royale ever did, but its heart is still Bond. Certainly not the greatest Bond film, certainly not the worst.

But the building control officer who approved the plans for that hotel in the desert should be shot! Have these people never heard of risk analysis? ;o)

Yes Man

I haven't (yet) read the book, so came at this with few preconceptions, except the obvious 'oh no, its Jim Carrey girning again' one. I found it quite entertaining and Zooey Deschanel (and Terence Stamp) elevate it to a better film than it probably beserves to be. Light-hearted fluff, but a fun hour and a half. Sufficient laugh out loud moments to make it a good comedy and, of course, Zooey is as captivating and sweet as ever. And Jim Carrey isn't too annoying. But this is Zooey's movie. The cameo by Danny Wallace looks totally staged though.

The day the earth stood still

Keanu Reeves is a relitively emotion-free alien. I can buy that. There's nothing earth-shattering here, but the film is entertainingly diverting for an hour and a half. They could have done more with it, but it could have been so much worse. You do actually care what happens to Jennifer Connelly's character, even if her step-son is an unnecessarily contrived plot device. Don't pay to see it, but watch it if its on...

Milk

I watched this movie on a flight from New York to Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago. It's excellent.

For those of you who don't know, its the bio-pic of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to public office in the USA; in the late 70s.

I feel I have to state up front that the pre-AIDS gay scene, particularly the San Francisco one featured here, fascinates me and repulses me in more or less equal measure.

I find the sense of community, bonding, shared responsibility, shared homes and possessions, etc., really quite appealing - in some ways its oddly reminiscent of the way the Bible portrays the early church; the believers (a persecuted minority) being united in possessions and purpose.

Of course where the SF gay scene in the 70s differs from the early church is the sexual promiscuity, etc.

I did find the sexuality in this movie pretty tough going at times. There's nothing explicit on screen, but I found some of the attitudes and behaviour pretty repulsive - particularly the elevation of the importance of sex above the importance of relationship. There's one scene here where two guys start making out before they even know each other's names. I know this happens in heterosexual as well as homosexual circles, but I still find that pretty uncomfortable viewing.

The movie starts with Harvey Milk recording a message to be played only in the event of his assassination. It sets up your expectations for the film. Before viewing the film, the only two things I knew about Harvey Milk were that he was the first openly gay man elected to public office in the USA, and that he was murdered while in office. However, I think the opening of the film kind of puts false expectations onto the viewer, as he wasn't really murdered for his homosexuality (as is implied at the outset, and throughout the film), but for other political reasons. However, that is really a minor niggle.

Sean Penn gives an outstanding performance as Harvey Milk. How he didn't win awards for this performance is a mystery - this is a masterclass in acting. From the word go, I wasn't watching Sean Penn acting the part of Harvey Milk, I was watching Milk himself. This is a good enough reason to watch the film in itself.

The character of Harvey Milk is also very interesting. He didn't set out to be a politician. Indeed, the film starts on the eve of his 40th birthday when he's reflecting on his life and he realises that he's not really done anything of note. But we see him slowly changing from the attitude of "someone should do something about this..." to "nobody else is going to do something, but I can do something...". Its amazing how this shy guy transforms into a figure head and a leader.

The rest of the cast are good too, and the period setting is perfectly evoked, but this is Penn/Milk's movie.

Its fascinating, informative, thought-provoking and entertaining. Highly recommended.

Reggie Perrin

I laughed only once in the first episode of Reggie Perrin last night. Probably won't bother with episode 2. Then again, I probably wouldn't find the original that entertaining if I was to revisit it today.

But what is it with BBC1 sitcoms? They're all unfunny!

The Dark Volume by G.W. Dahlquist

You may remember I reviewed 'Glass Books of the Dream Eaters' a couple of years back. Well, this is the follow up.

If you loved Glass Books..., you've probably read the sequel already, so I guess there's not much point in reviewing it for you. So, what did you think?

I found Glass Books a really exciting and engaging experience. It really was one of those books you lose yourself in. But it wasn't perfect. Probably my greatest complaint about Glass Books is the ending - it comes too abruptly and leaves the central characters in an unresolved setting. Glass Books is a very well told exploration of an unfamiliar land, as you read you find out more about the people, more about the place, more about the science, etc. It doesn't all make sense at the outset, but as the story unfolds bits fall into place and you deduce what's going on, or it is revealed to you. But. It ends with the feeling that you've only been told about 9/10ths of the story.

The Dark Volume picks up where Glass Books left off and carries on the story. But the main problem is that there isn't a whole load of story that we were unaware of in the first book. There's still only 1/10th of the story of Glass Books left to tell. And this is padded out to fill a book the size of its predecessor. Indeed, I was very annoyed to discover that the story is still unresolved at the end of The Dark Volume, so we've actually been told less than 1/10th of the story. There's at least another volume to come.

Glass Books worked so well because it teased the reader with tantalising partial revelations for most of the first half of the book, which were then fully revealed later on. There was also plenty of adventure and exploration. But all the revelation was done in Glass Books, there was nothing really new to reveal here. And for the most part we visited the same locations as the earlier book. And the adventure was fairly run-of-the-mill. So, by the end, I really didn't care anymore.

I hope the next book is better. I also hope the next book concludes the story. But what I really want now is for G.W. Dahlquist to go and write a brand new adventure, with new characters and new twists and tease and tantalise us like last time.

Wikipedia Names Your Band

Wikipedia Names Your Band.

Here's how you do it:

1. Go to a random Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The name of the article becomes your band's name.

2. Go to Random Quotations:
http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3
The last 4-5 words of the last quotation on the page are your the title of your first album.

3. Go to Flickr's "Explore the last 7 days" and choose the third picture:
http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days
This will be your album cover.

Put them all together and make an album cover.

Here's mine:

Now do yours and leave a comment with a link pointing to it...

Well, it could happen...